RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To summarize an innovative initiative in oncology nurse workforce development that addresses critical current and future gaps and encompasses use of dedicated education units for student nurse rotation and a transition-to-practice residency program. DATA SOURCES: Review of institutional data including original pilot analysis and ongoing programmatic metrics (N=8 years), consensus, professional guidelines, and published literature. CONCLUSION: The dedicated education unit serves as a conduit for recruitment into institutional oncology nurse residency positions, and retention rates in the residency program continue to exceed national averages. Subsequent mentoring of these nurses in transition to practice has manifested high rates of promotion into nurse leadership roles year over year. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Oncology nurse practice incorporates state-of-the-science approved therapies, early phase clinical trial implementation, and evidence-based complex oncology patient care management. A new model of student clinical nurse rotations in ambulatory settings, nurse resident transition to practice, and ongoing leadership mentoring is essential in creating a sustainable, highly skilled, and robust oncology nurse work force.
Asunto(s)
Educación en Enfermería/organización & administración , Enfermería Oncológica/educación , Preceptoría/organización & administración , Recursos Humanos , Atención Ambulatoria/organización & administración , Competencia Clínica , Humanos , Rol de la Enfermera , Investigación en Evaluación de EnfermeríaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) formed an Infusion Efficiency Workgroup to determine best practices for operating efficient and effective infusion centers. METHODS: The Workgroup conducted three surveys that were distributed to NCCN member institutions regarding average patient wait time, chemotherapy premixing practices, infusion chair use, and premedication protocols. To assess chair use, the Workgroup identified and defined five components of chair time. RESULTS: The average patient wait time in infusion centers ranged from 25 to 102 minutes (n = 23; mean, 58 minutes). Five of 26 cancer centers (19%) routinely mix chemotherapy drugs before patient arrival for patients meeting specified criteria. Total planned chair time for subsequent doses of the same drug regimens for the same diseases varied greatly among centers, as follows: Administration of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide ranged from 85 to 240 minutes (n = 22); of FOLFIRINOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplation) ranged from 270 to 420 minutes (n = 22); of rituximab ranged from 120 to 350 minutes (n = 21); of paclitaxel plus carboplatin ranged from 255 to 380 minutes (n = 21); and of zoledronic acid ranged from 30 to 150 minutes (n = 22) for planned total chair time. Cancer centers were found to use different premedication regimens with varying administration routes that ranged in administration times from zero to 60 minutes. CONCLUSION: There is a high degree of variation among cancer centers in regard to planned chair time for the same chemotherapy regimens, providing opportunities for improved efficiency, increased revenue, and more standardization across centers. The NCCN Workgroup demonstrates potential revenue impact and provides recommendations for cancer centers to move toward more efficient and more standard practices.